Guaranteed Tuition model continues to cause controversy

Senators and students expressed continued dissatisfaction with the proposed Guaranteed Tuition model in Wednesday’s Student Senate meeting, following the testimony Ohio University representatives gave to the Ohio House Finance and Appropriations Subcommittee last month.Senior Lobbyist Jacob Chaffin and student Matthew Farmer (a previous version of this article incorrectly stated his last name was Gardner) addressed Senate with a presentation critical of the metrics proposed in the testimony. They argued that the Guaranteed Tuition model was essentially a guaranteed tuition hike for subsequent cohorts of incoming students and that it did not really help student indebtedness.Farmer discussed potential data tables put out by the administration outlining the savings of one cohort of students under the Guaranteed Tuition model compared to the current model with constant increases under the proposed state cap of two percent.  The university is seeking an above-cap allowance of up to nine percent per year per cohort increase, a metric that Gardner views as dangerous toward incoming OU students.Chaffin cited language used within the testimony to illustrate that this model benefits the institution more than it does students. “Guaranteed Tuition programs are not tuition savings plans but rather are intended to provide transparency and predictability for student and parents,” he quoted.Chaffin called on Senate to condemn the Guaranteed Tuition model, and to look forward to discussions about changing the dialogue to one concerning state share of instruction.“I’m never going to argue against them, the problem being that state share of instruction has fallen. That’s always been a true statement. It will always be a true statement as long as we allow it to be,” Chaffin said.Senate Adviser Aris Kaleps explained that under Gov. John Kasich’s proposed budget, the higher education funding model would be shifting toward a 50-50 balance between state share and institution support. He explained that, because the state would like to begin shifting to a graduation-based model of state support, this plan intentionally benefits the state and public universities.“It’s based on this idea that we are just going to be a factory churning out students every four years… It is convenient for the direction of where state share of instruction is going to be moving,” said Kaleps.Some senators were critical of the presenters’ analysis of the plan. Governmental Affairs Senator Giles Allen challenged Chaffin to provide more concrete ideas for increasing the state share of instruction. “What is your idea? If we outright oppose this, we would be back to square one,” Allen said.Black Affairs Commissioner Darius Jenkins accused the debate of being premature, given that no numbers have been finalized for the model and therefore Senate had no facts on which to base their argument. Senate President Zach George echoed this statement, saying that he had met President Roderick McDavis earlier that day, and that the President indicated much progress had been made on the model, and that more final numbers would be available in coming weeks.“Realistically, what they will probably go for is a rate of about 5.9 percent,” said George.Student Trustee Amanda Roden expressed a unique concern about the tuition plans for the upcoming fall semester, given that this plan will not be enacted in time for next year. She argued that Senate instead should be looking at more immediate concerns.